On Aug. 14, DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt requested a preliminary hearing for a non-fatal shooting be continued to allow her time to review surveillance footage of the incident.
Daquawn Lubin, 27, is charged with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed and two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that occurred on July 24 on the 4600 block of Benning Road, SE. The incident left two adult males suffering from non-life-threatening injuries.
Prosecutors called forth a responding Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer to the stand. According to the officer, there are various surveillance footage videos showing moments before the shooting that connect Lubin to the incident.
Surveillance footage from the night of the incident, which was shown in court, shows two male individuals, one of whom was later identified as Lubin, arriving at the location and being let into the building by someone at approximately 8:07 pm. When he arrived, Lubin was seen wearing a teal hat and shirt with a logo, light-wash jeans with rips on the knees, and gray New Balance sneakers.
According to MPD documents, presented by the officer as part of his testimony, the first victim arrived at the location of the incident after he had a disagreement with a female during a phone call, whom he identified as his girlfriend. When he arrived at the location, he realized that his girlfriend had two female and two male individuals, including Lubin, in the apartment with her. He got agitated and kicked the visitors out.
According to the documents, the first victim had a weird feeling about the two male individuals who were in the apartment.
Surveillance footage shows Lubin and his male companion walking towards the rear parking lot, where the shooting would later take place, after being asked to leave. Once at the parking lot, surveillance footage shows Lubin speaking to the other three individuals that were kicked out of the apartment with him, before getting into a vehicle with his male companion and driving away.
The first victim then allegedly called the second victim, who is his family member, to help mediate the disagreement he was having with his girlfriend. He also called his cousin to meet him at the apartment complex in case someone was waiting for him at the parking lot. It is unclear if the victim’s cousin ever arrived at the location.
A while later, surveillance footage shows an individual wearing light-washed jeans, gray sneakers, and a black hoodie with white writing on it arrive at the parking lot at 9:43 pm and hide between two vehicles. Twenty minutes later, surveillance footage shows two shadows, who were later identified as the victims, entering the parking lot and two individuals begin to shoot in the direction of the shadows. Both shooters are seen leaving the area following the incident.
According to the MPD officer, the first victim remained on the scene until responding officers were able to locate him hiding behind a vehicle – a gun and other belongings were allegedly recovered from the area where he was found. The second victim was located in a building across the street.
Lubin’s defense attorney questioned the second victim’s reason to leave the scene, arguing that someone who was shot at would only leave the scene of the incident if they were in possession of things that could get them in trouble, insinuating that the second victim may have also had a weapon on him. She argued that because the surveillance footage fails to show the victims, it is unclear if they were first to shoot.
According to the officer, the first victim and his girlfriend were interviewed while he was in the hospital. When asked about people who may have wanted to shoot him, the first victim told officers about the disagreement with his girlfriend that left a bad feeling about Lubin and his male companion. When shown an image from surveillance footage of Lubin first arriving at the apartment, they both identified him and his companion as the individuals that were kicked out of the apartment, but never identified him by name.
According to the officer, the victim told MPD detectives that he had seen Lubin and his companion around before, but had never interacted with them before. He also stated he had not been able to see who had shot at him.
MPD was able to link Lubin to the scene utilizing GPS from the vehicle he was using. According to the officer, the car was a loaner from a dealership in Maryland. Workers at the dealership were able to identify the car as the one Lubin had received from them. The car’s GPS tracking system showed that the vehicle left the location of the shooting and returned a few hours later. When they returned, GPS showed the car was parked a few blocks away from the parking lot. It then left the location moments after the shooting occurred.
According to the officer, the loaner car was towed to be evaluated by MPD during the execution of a search warrant at Lubin’s house. During that search warrant, officers recovered pants and shoes that match the shooter’s clothing, as well as a gun in the grass in front of the building.
Following the officer’s testimony, Lubin’s defense attorney argued that the prosecutors had failed to meet the burden of proof as the only way Lubin was connected to the incident was through the bottom half of his outfit and his car being in a location he frequented.
Defense attorneys argued that the clothing seen on the shooter is common in DC with Lubin’s age group.
Judge Brandt requested extra time before she made a ruling to allow her time to thoroughly review the surveillance footage provided by prosecutors.
Parties are expected back Aug. 15 for a ruling.
